Take a look at this story. How about these ones? All accounts of average Americans being denied their Constitutional freedom of religion by being forbidden to express their religion. Ordinary Americans, sacked from their jobs and kicked out of their schools because their religious beliefs don't suit the narrow-minded Christian minority. This is an outrage, isn't it?

Well no. It isn't an outrage. If ordinary people had been persecuted for their sincerely held religious beliefs, that would be an outrage. But that isn't what happened. What happened is that some slacker teenagers made a fashion statement which was aimed at shocking ordinary decent people, then acted all surprised when it had the intended effect. It's time to face the truth; Wicca isn't a religion, and to compare the legitimate dress codes of American employers and educators with genuine persecution of religious minorities is offensive.

Here's the facts, kids. According to dictionary.com, a "religion" is a sincerely held set of beliefs, part of a tradition and a way of life. Wicca fails on all three counts.

Sincerely held beliefs:

They aren't. Here's the facts. "Wiccans", "Neopagans" and such like, tend to be young, American and university educated. University educated people don't usually believe in things which are, on the face of them, absolutely untrue. The creation myths, cosmogonies and rituals of all pagan religions are all ludicrous. Earth Mothers, naked magick, Crow Spirits -- any attempt to look deeply into the content of the hotchpotch of half-baked fairystories and horrormovie cliches which make up the average pagan's belief system comes up against a flat wall of incredulity pretty quickly. Nobody of even averageintelligence could possibly actually believe any of this to be literally true. Therefore, by syllogism, the vast majority of so-called "Wiccans" are not sincere in what they claim to believe.

This point is important, so it bears analysis. Not only are the beliefs of Wiccans ridiculous to the point of risibility, they're also provably fabricated and internally inconsistent. The entire religion of Wicca was created out of whole cloth in 1952 by a British Civil Servant called Gerald Gardner. Therefore, for example, the First Church of Jesus Christ, Elvis are on a more solid footing than the Wiccans, given that Elvis is both older and more historically real than anything in Wicca. And, furthermore, every half-educated Wiccan knows that this is the case.

It gets better. When Gardner invented neopaganism, he just put it together from all the bits he liked from the Penguin Library of Mythology. So Wicca has bits of Northern Italian folklore, bits of the Magick of Aleister Crowley (mainly Jewish mysticism), bits of Greek elemental symbolism (Thales, 500BC) and the whole thing suffused with a miasma of "Celtic" imagery, referring to a gang of Austrian savages who ended up in Galicia, with no culture, only the most extremely dubious historical provenance and the most tenuous of connections to the people who walk round calling each other "Celts" today. Plus a load of ritual nudity which was very certainly never in the originals. It says something that Scientology and Wicca were invented at roughly the same time; while the American Hubbard came up with a money-making machine that has a proven record of effecting miracle narcotics addiction cures, the best the Brits could come up with was a Carry on Camping version of the Bacchanalia we all learn in third year Latin.

Not only that, but the main creed of the "neopagan" movement is "An it hurt none, do as you will", which plagiarises Crowley, smuggles a bit of Chaucerian Middle English into a supposedly pre-Christian tradition and directly contradicts the two things we know for certain about the actually existing pagans; a) that they had many ritual taboos, so they didn't think "do as you will" and b) that they didn't care about hurting people. It is no exaggeration to say that the main works of Celtic literature are almost entirely concerned with the subject of killing other people and stealing their cows. When they don't deal with the equally mystical and spiritual subject of getting drunk and waking up in a ditch.

A tradition

Put it this way. Nobody was brought up Wiccan. Nobody had their children named at a "blooding ceremony" straight after the "hand-fasting", nobody took their children to campfires instead of Sunday School and nobody sat up night after night teaching their little ones enough Chaucer to give them a hope of understanding what "an you hurt none" means. Or if they did, then the social services intervened pretty quickly and quite right too. Unlike the Christian, Jewish, Hindu and Muslim religions, there is nobody whose neopagan "beliefs" locate them in a long line of believers starting with their parents, and their parents' parents.

Of course there isn't. Simply to pose the possibility is to see it as ridiculous. People don't become Wiccans in order to carry on the beliefs of their parents. People become Wiccans in order to offend their parents, to try to extract some revenge on Mum and Dad for the terrible crime of having financially supported them for all of their fourteen years of life. There have never been and will never be any second-generation Wiccans, because there is simply no point in being a Wiccan if it isn't going to wind up Ma and Pa. The pagan "tradition" is the actual antithesis of a tradition. Which is why telling a Wiccan to stop wearing his severed rabbit head or his inverted pentagram is absolutely nothing like removing the cross from a Christian school or depriving a Jew of his Star of David. One of these things is to strip a human being of his identity, to remove the very essence of what is important about his humanity. The other is just to tell a silly little child (of whatever age) not to bare his bottom in public.

Way of Life

Wiccanism, like the organised simper which goes in the West by the name of "Buddhism", is a religion which, unusually, makes no practical demands whatever on its adherents. A Wiccan doesn't go to hell if they are stopped from making silly hand signs at the customers in McDonalds, in the way that a Muslim can sincerely believe himself to be in danger of if provision is not made for him to make Umrah. Suited to the intellectually flabby, scruffy, lazy slacker teenagers who believe in it, Wicca is not a religion which gives a code by which to live one's life. It has no observances, fasts or obligations to charity. All it is, is a style of dress, a calculated giving of offense to Christians, and the occasional excuse for a booze-up for people too dull or inhibited to be able to open a bottle of whisky without turning it into a piece of amateurish performance art. That's not a religion. It's a pose. And, of course, and not coincidentally, an excuse to ensure that there's no black people invited to your fraternity parties because they're not "Celtic" enough.

So then, are we really, seriously, meant to believe that this half-dignified collection of Santa Claus myths is to be given the same status as the great religions of the world? Wicca isn't important to anybody. Nobody would ever lay down their life for Wicca; very few would sacrifice their Abercrombie & Fitch trenchcoats for the cause of the Goddess. Anyone looking at the site of a Wiccan party the morning after knows that the genuine regard which the neopagans have for the earth doesn't even stretch to picking up their own beer cans and condoms. So when an employer, or a teacher, tells a scruffy teenager to clean up their act, it's an injustice of the scale of telling a punk to wash their hair, not the first step to a pogrom. And the American Civil Liberties Union really ought to find something better to do with their time than to pretend that anything else is the case.

"Here's the facts, kids. According to dictionary.com, a "religion" is a sincerely held set of beliefs, part of a tradition and a way of life. Wicca fails on all three counts."

These are all very subjective. I am not sure that you can prove that wiccans are or are not any of these without getting inside their heads. It does not matter how much babble you write after these 'facts'.

Are you claiming that all science is subjective? That is a good point, but i dont see how it helps his or your case any. Seems if this is true (as you imply) then this whole web site is pretty stupid aint it? Why, then it is all just meaningless words aint it? I AGREE. your still a poopy-head though.

Re: Your a big-fat-poopy-head. (none / 0) (#7)

by Anonymous Reader on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 08:18:29 PM PST

Adequacy.org specializes in meaninglessness. Someone told me once that they agreed with an Adequacy.org article, but after we analyzed it together it was concluded that the article was truely meaningless, and just a, `this is how you COULD see it' kind of thing.

I've said it a million times, Adequacy.org is truely a liberal site; MOCKING the practice of conservatism.

I LOVE meaninglessness! I love this site. I just wasted 2 hours of hy life... i think, but who is keeping track anyway?...going over a bunch of comments and stuff on this site and it is crazy and fun. i was supposed to be prepping for a presentation on hackers that i am supposed to give in my Information Technology class on Friday. So if anyone reading has a brilliant idea of what I can talk about for a half an hour, Email me. Anything as wild and meaningless as I have been reading will go over well with my classmates. jazz-diva-in-my-own-mind

You've come to the right place! (5.00 / 1) (#10)

by Anonymous Reader on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 09:39:50 PM PST

For biting, incisive criticism of the "hax0r" lifestyle, you should start here and read your way through these.

The real world doesn't work by "proving" things "rationally"[1]. The real world works by brute force and charismatic ad-hominem. You may not like it, but it's just a law of nature; you might as well rail against the injustice of gravitation.

[1] Sorry if your liberalist university professor mislead you otherwise. That should teach you to trust university professors.

your interpretation of reality. Although the news and popular propaganist culture makes an attempt to point a finger at individuals in an attempt to explain their over simplified view of reality, the reality of the situation is quite different. The most common refutation of your argument is the case of Adolf Hitler. If GERMANY hadn't been raped by the disgusting french imperialists after WW1, then Hitler would have remained a starving artist. Another example is the USSR and Stalin. If the west hadn't made every attempt to contain communism, Stalin wouldn't have been able to declare a state of emergency and get initial support for his plan. There are more, but clearly you should be able to grasp that EVENTS not PEOPLE create reality. 'Will to Power' is a nice theory, but it only goes so far.

Conservatives want to control, liberals want to equalize. This is why you must love this site. It truely shows the kind of thing you have to deal with concerning conservatism.

Offensive content (none / 0) (#44)

by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 07:27:47 PM PST

I, as a Wiccan, found the "article" VERY offensive. To say that my religion is NOT a religion is completely unfounded. All of the so called "facts" posted as proof of this were merely snippets of some half done research, used to serve the author's own biased and hateful prejudices.

I do NOT do naked magick. I don't have "Wiccan parties". No, Wicca does not demand any tithes. So what? Wiccans (true Wiccans) are in general very ecologiscally minded. I haven't met a "litterbug" Wiccan yet.

As far as the follow up post, about a "teenager who was into Wicca and decided to invoke African deities into her livingroom" ... yes there are some misinformed people jumping into the Craft, based on something they saw in a movie or tv show that "looked cool". Do I wear black? Do I make "offensive hand gestures to the people at McDonalds"? Do I wear severed rabbit heads? Do I wear jewelry that is an "inverted pentagram"? NO. I am a loving, college educated (oh DARN, the author got THAT one right, guess they are right about the whole thing!), 24 year old mother of two.

Yes, I believe in fairies. Yes, I celebrate Samhain (or as you so-called Christians would delude yourselves into celebrating with no qualms, HALLOWEEN). Does this involve ritualistically killing animals, or shedding blood at all? No. I don't even drink WINE when I worship. As someone who was raised Christian, and got fed up with the "now God is loving, but here in the rest of the Bible he is punishing someone for some minor transgressions" teachings, I am aware that some groups of Christians drink wine at their Sunday worship services. Do I condemn all of Christianity for what I perceive as some hypocritical teachings, and for some "ridiculous" religious traditions? No.

Who are YOU to say what religion is "true" and what is "false"? If you call yourself a Christian, and celebrate Jesus' birth every December (when he wasn't born at that time, the Church just decided to have a Pagan celebration festival serve their own purposes to ease the conversion of the masses), then you just may be familiar with the Bible quote : "Judge not, lest ye be judged."

Isn't that a contradiction in terms? It sounds very much like you decided to become wiccan to upset Mummy and Daddy, just like stated in the article. I think you'll also find the author's statements about the history of the wiccan movement are alot more accurate and can be easily proven, unlike the garbage wiccans spout as the 'history' of their false beliefs. Your comment about "Wiccans (true Wiccans) are in general very ecologiscally minded" scratches at the surface of truth, and that is that most so-called wiccans are greenie liberalists who want to wear a sign to identify them as someone different from the norm. "oh, i'm a white, middle classed, 20-something who needs to feel individual. I'm absolutely identical in every way to everybody else I know, but at least if I subscribe to a belief system that isn't as mainstream as Christianity I can appear to be different".

Last thing, you ask "Do I condemn all of Christianity for what I perceive as some hypocritical teachings, and for some "ridiculous" religious traditions?" and then proceed to do just that. Maybe you should have spent your time at college doing a real subject, not studying drama.

Never fight naked, unless you're in prison...

Sister will do the best she can (3.00 / 2) (#8)

by Anonymous Reader on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 09:02:31 PM PST

<P><em>Fay ce que voudras</em> from Rabelais is the special provenance of that which you seek.

<p>I invite you to consider what would happen if the chthonic forces could not be raised in case of a celestial invasion.

...but it is unfortunately a subscription service. Personally, I have no problem with paying for access to a quality site like the OED. However, if I had posted a link to a definition on a pay site, it would undoubtedly have led to wails of indignation from the infantile snivelling "free" software bigots who regrettably seem to infest this site.

if I had posted a link to a definition on a pay site, it would undoubtedly have led to wails of indignation from the infantile snivelling "free" software bigots who regrettably seem to infest this site.

We do not care about whinging from 'free software' bigots. The editors here simply delete their worthless comments. Adequacy has no problem with links to premium services. Indeed, many adequacy editors subscribe to several of these Lexis/Nexis, Reuters financials, Associated Press newswire, to name but a few. Let me make it perfectly clear: adequacy.org has no problem with the business model of selling a product rather than giving it away for free. So feel free to link to paysites, subscriptions services etc etc. Its all the same to us, since we have fairly deep pockets and are probably already subscribed to anything you cared to link to.

time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
-- MC Hawking

Since the events surrounding Moses's communications had no witnesses then or now except Moses, (like all other revelations) we can't use this requirement for establishing religions. (At least in any meaningful way) Doing so would abolish all religions.

That being said, who is to say that modern wiccans don't experience revelations? Not that it would matter because if one did and brought it to the attention of the world then the individual would be committed or more likely scoffed.

Ok. First of all, she didn't even know that Papa Legba exists, or that no contact is possible with the lwa without him being on the deal, but much less than he gets really pissed at any such attempt. Also, Freda is a really demanding lwa; you certainly will insult her if you simply buy a premade altar. No, no, you have to make the altar yourself, the lwa can't be bought, you have to serve them.

As a result, Legba and Freda now hate this girl. She flunked out of college, got pregnant at a Wicca party, no clue who the father is, her parents died (she is an only child), had an abortion (which only pissed off the lwa further). Desperate, she turned to prostitution, but found that with Freda actively messing with her sex appeal, she couldn't get clients. Now she is just an orphan homeless in the streets, at age 22.

The lesson is simple. The Walmart approach to religion embodied by Wicca will simply bring you harm. And above all, do not invite random African deities into your living room. They are very demanding, and outright nasty if not served in the appropriate manner.--em
Associate Editor, Adequacy.org

Ok, here it is. I just wanted to thank the pagans and the others that posted here for giving me something to laugh my morning away at. You are all very entertaining. I am a pagan, myself. I love being a pagan. Call me what you like. I don't really care. I just think it's pretty funny that all you guys are sitting around getting all worked up over an article on an internet site. Yeah, I found the article pretty ridiculous, I'll admit. But ya know, I don't care enough to try and argue. I will say this, though. I appreciated reading each and every post for what it was. Some made me angry, and some made me laugh. Anyway, who are these people and what qualifications do they have to tell pagans that our beliefs are insubstantial? And what qualifies you as pagans to tell them they're wrong in what they believe? We have a freedom of religion here in America, and if I went out and decided to worship my bag of potato chips, who has the authority to tell me I can't? Not a single person. So keep on posting, cause I'm having a GREAT time. Much love to all of you!

That's pretty much my point. Keep on bashing. I don't really care much about it. But it's fun to read. Most religions are based on teachings of peace and love. Bashing is neither peaceful, nor loving, and so I don't think even YOUR god would approve of such behavior. Well, unless you happen to be a Satanist, in which case, I think that would be the only exception. So say what you will if it makes you feel better. Hope you're paid up on your Karma. Oh, and by the way, I'm a SHE, not a HE.

Religion may be about love, but that's not the vacuous feel-good statement that you seem to think it is.

Christianity and Paganism are fundamentally opposed, because Pagan worship of the flesh and humanisation of God was the basis for the unfathomable horrors of the ancient world. Today, we do kill and destroy, but no one in the modern world can bring the same indifference to it that we would have seen in a Roman lord's face while having a slave beaten - or tortured, or literally torn to pieces for an entertainment at dinner. We do evil, but not with the cold ease that Carthage showed when it sacrificed 5,000 children to Baal for victory in the Second Punic War.

Christianity arose among slaves because it taught that each person was of transcendental value, that each person was equally beloved of the Lord of the Universe, to whom the earth and all it kingdoms were as a footstool. Christianity demands of us that we strive ceaselessly toward our own salvation and the betterment of the world. I know that many Christians ignore that - but don't let a cartoon version of Christianity conceal the manygood things done by Christians of all denominations the world over. Will we see the same thing come out of Wicca?

I never said pagans were perfect. That has been proven by the ones that have participated in the bashing by bashing back. And I never said that Christians were bad. I have many Christian friends. Each of us as humans were given free will, and in many cases, this free will has been used throughout history for injustices disguised with the name of God. There's nothing wrong with Christianity itself. The idea is beautiful. Kinda like Communism. What a wonderful idea, but like all utopian concepts, even Democracy, as perfect as the idea is, the manifestation always contains within it some sort of fundamentalist corruption. Fundamentalists of ANY kind can be dangerous. Whether Democratic, or Communist. Whether Christian or Pagan. So it's not the Christians, the Jews, the Pagans, the African Americans, the Communists, or the Democrats or Republicans. It is the flaws in singular people and their views that bring on such atrocities. There is no such thing as killing in the name of God. God expressly told everybody through the Bible NOT to kill. Ever. In Wicca and most Pagan and earth-based religions, we are taught, "An ye harm none, do as ye will". That basically means, no killing or interfering with other people's free will. There are people in all religions and faiths that don't follow that rule, and it's those people that make the rest of us look bad. So whatever historical killings you want to reference are fine, but leave the gods out of it. They want no part in senseless murder. The God(s) never told Hitler to burn Jewish people. Never told Elizabeth Bathory to kill virgin women and bathe in their blood. And never told the terrorists to crash planes into the WTC towers. There are many wonderful things about all religions. And each has it's own gift to our world. The important thing is to keep our minds open and informed enough not to think our opinions are the only ones with merit. The world is full of wonderful ideas, and wonderful, moral people from all paths. So walk your path, and travel with the love and light of the universe in your heart always. Blessed be.

I don't buy it at all. I think your vision of religion is extremely self-serving; after all, it puts you pretty high above all the other idiots in the world who think religion is fighting over. I think that it is unscientific without offering a criticism of science. I think it is touchy-feely, content-free self-love.

You can throw up your hands at this point and decide that I'm not worth bothering with. I shouldn't be surprised. But I hope you answer, because I think a rigorous criticism of religious belief and its motivations will do you a lot of good.

Nathan

PS - Am I the only person who hears 'blessed be' as both insufferably pretentious and gramatically ambiguous?--Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Rebuttal (none / 0) (#108)

by Anonymous Reader on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 08:26:10 AM PST

Actually, it's just the opposite, dear. My path requires me to take responsibility for myself and my own actions and the consequences of those actions. What goes around comes around, so be careful what you say and do. This is the meaning of "An ye harm none, do as ye will." It's the golden rule rewritten. Unscientific is definitely not a word I'd use to describe it either. There are many scientific views incorporated into this path. The cycles of the moon, sun, and stars influence when, where and how our religion is practiced due to the inevitable influence these heavenly bodies have on our earth and our lives. In order for your statement on scientific criticism to have the merit you put to it in proving that my path is not a religion, may I bring to your attention the conflict in the scientific theories of evolution and the Big Bang theory and the Christian belief of how the universe was created. If what you're saying is true that a religion isn't a religion that does not have the support of science, would this also apply to Christianity? Religion is a matter of faith. Faith requires no science. As for being "touchy-feely content-free self-love", I must again disagree. We celebrate life. Not just our own, but life of the earth, the life force in general. This is not a self-love. It is an all inclusive unconditional love. You are entitled to your opinion, and I appreciate you expressing yourself. I am simply offering you a different perspective.

I think that [wicca] is unscientific without offering a criticism of science.

Your response to that was that Christianity isn't scientific either, but wicca does use astronomical calculations to organize its rituals. With respect, this doesn't address my point at all.

Show me how wicca offers a philosophically coherent criticism of scientific materialism of naturalism. Show me anything philosophically rigorous than any wiccan has ever come up with! Show me the wiccan missions out feeding the poor or rescuing cave children in Rumania. Some wiccans claim to be taking responsibility, but it seems to me most are just burning smelly herbs and gazing at their own navels.

--Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Q&A (none / 0) (#112)

by Anonymous Reader on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 11:26:16 AM PST

What basis do you have for your argument that Wicca offers no "philosophically coherent criticism of scientific materialism of naturalism"? What specifically are you asking for? As for the part about Wiccans doing their part in improving the condition of the world in which we live, many pagans of all paths are not openly pagan. You must remember that we live in a world where up until recent decades, it was dangerous just not being a white male. In the last decade or so, the pagans have been coming out just as the homosexual community has in the past years. Still, in this society, it's much safer to confess to being gay than to confess to being a pagan. Therefore, there are MANY pagans that do wonderful humanitarian things without the admission of their religious path for fear of religious persecution. Yes, we live in a country where we have the freedom to choose our religion, but sadly, there are people that will still try and run you out of town for not being of an "accepted" faith. So, there are many pagans out there doing their part, but needn't disclose their religious beliefs in order to be a giving and charitable person. As far as staring at the navel, I don't know anyone who does that and I'm interested in knowing where you're acquiring your information.

Still, in this society, it's much safer to confess to being gay than to confess to being a pagan.

Not bloody likely.

Get off the cross and get over yourself. Wicca is not a respectable or respected intellectual or spiritual movement. There is no corpus of wiccan knowledge, no wiccan praxis, no wiccan philosophy. Wicca offers me nothing to replace Christianity or naturalism except wacky platitudes about energy and horned gods that can't be held to any particular meaning. What exactly is a wiccan doing when she casts a spell? Does it work or does it not?

My name is David. I have read your views on what you believe and how you believe them, but where do you get the right to say anything about what someone else wants practice. Are you GOD? I'll go ahead and answer for you, NO!!! Well, I'm not Pegan, nor am I Christian, nor am I wiccan, but I follow the Native American believes, and traditions. I follow what is in my blood, not what the majority of society follows, I follow my own heart and do what I feel is right without hurting anyone around me nor myself. You speak so much, as though you know the answers to everyones questions, as though you know the answers to the Universe. Well I don't think you do. I belief in the circle of life, the circle is the power in life, the neverending circle. From childhood to childhood. You say your pegan, or Christian, hell I don't know what you are. You express no views on any certain religion or certain faith, so what gives you the right to put others down for exploring something that may bring them piece and harmony in their life. No, I can't say that I agree with the wiccan ways, but that doesn't concern me, it isn't my faith. You want to talk about bloodshed, then what about the Natives. Brutely massacred, and their homes and land taken away, and for what? Because the white man out numbered and forced them from their home. The white man wanted the land, so why let the Natives keep the land, why not just be selfish and rob someone of their land, and their traditions. Cherokees, which is what is in my blood, walked the Trail of Tears, because Andrew Jackson vetoed a bill and took away their land, and forced them to go elsewhere. The Cherokees did this, and lost many lives doing so, and all because the so called Christians wanted more than what they have. About trying this, try living with others in piece and harmony, try living off of what the earth offers us. Would you starve today if there wasn't a computer in your face or a T.V. to feel your mind? What would you do if modern technology was taken away tomorrow? I don't know any religion that is taught to condemn others for their believes. I belief that you must respect others believes, and not condemn someone for what they belief, but also demand respect for what I belief as well. Well, you aren't respecting my believes or anyone else's believes here, so why should I respect yours? I just wanted to let you know that I respect all human life, and all life here on earth, and maybe you should try and do the same. Take a moment in your day to appreciate the things around you, nature in it's self. Give thanks to the animals that give their lives so that you can continue with your life. Don't take these things for granted, cause at the end you will be judged, not by me nor no one else here but by a greater power that it seems you know very little about. So take this day to cherish and honor the gifts you have in your life and stop condemning others for their believes. They will be dealt with and judged the same as you, but never put someone down for haveing faith in something. Faith is life itself. If you have anything you would like to say, then you are free to speak your mind of your thoughts, but keep in mind that it is your opinion.

May life grant you the blessings you deserve,
David

Before we go on... (none / 0) (#115)

by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 08:14:50 AM PST

"Give me something solid to criticize." So far, you've based your opinion on the following: "I think it is touchy-feely, content-free self-love", and "it seems to me most are just burning smelly herbs and gazing at their own navels". Tell me, are these facts, or opinion? What historically, philisophically, or scientifically sound information do you have to back up your claims that "Wicca is not a respectable or respected intellectual or spiritual movement. There is no corpus of Wiccan knowledge, no wiccan praxis, no wiccan philosophy. Wicca offers me nothing to replace Christianity or naturalism except wacky platitudes about energy and horned gods that can't be held to any particular meaning"? And just to gain a little more understanding of your background, may I ask which religion you follow?

Nathan... (none / 0) (#116)

by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 08:25:23 AM PST

You're making yourself look like a big ol' jerk here, buddy, and I'm blessed that you aren't my neighbor, because I'd probably let my dog poop in your yard, and I wouldn't clean it up, either, so HA!

Nathan's thread (none / 0) (#119)

by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 11:45:36 AM PST

Nathan,

You are arguing with no back up. It seems that you know nothing about the religion of Wicca. (nothing accurate, anyway) And furthermore, you are ignorant for being so overly concerned with dogma that you fail to see what this means of spirituality is all about. Wicca may not be a religion with a solid, organized foundation; but to many Wiccans, this is the beauty of it. Dogma often clouds the true reason for religion in the first place - to connect with the Divine, and to help make this World a better place. The bottom line is this - call God whatever name you want, give God any face you want, it doesn't change what God is. And God just IS. Who are you to tell anyone that their version of God or method of connecting with the Divine is not valid? All paths are valid. Anyone who says otherwise is completely missing the point. So go ahead and use your big words to try to belittle others' beliefs. The only one you are making a fool of is yourself.

you are ignorant for being so overly concerned with dogma that you fail to see what this means of spirituality is all about.

I'm sorry, this just doesn't wash. You seem to think that any spirituality is good spirituality; that 'spirituality' means communing with the cosmos however you want, that 'connecting to the Divine' is trivially easy.

This is just inane. It's awfully convenient to espouse this viewpoint, because you can 'connect to the Divine' without really asking anything of yourself. Consider the suffering of Donne. Donne wrote that he 'laboured to admit [God], but oh, to no end;' he wrote that 'connecting to the Divine' was the hardest thing imaginable. It demanded of him total surrender, beyond his powers. It demanded that he relinquish all his evil thoughts, actions, and tendencies, even in the privacy of his own heart. It demanded of him that he cease to live for his own gratification.

Donne calls on God, and there's no easy way to say this, to rape him. He begs God to break the resistance in his heart that he himself never could break. He cries that he wants to love God as God must be loved, but that he can't do it.

Does this make any sense, or are you so addled by liberalism that Donne's spiritual crisis just seems stupid? Religion, if it is genuine, is not merely a theory of knowledge, a body of magical beliefs, or a soft, therapeutic self-esteem boost. It is confrontation with that which transcends all of our understandings, hypocrisies, failures, weaknesses, and selfish desires.

...but it sounds to me like you're advocating the martyr's argument, that submitting to needless suffering is somehow necessary to validate your religious beliefs.

This sails dangerously close to the Lunixists' argument that using an insufferably poor operating system makes their belief in Open Sores all the more valid.adequacy.org -- because it isn't

Your attitude... (none / 0) (#125)

by Anonymous Reader on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 07:56:07 AM PST

Please stop it with the insults. I have read every one of your posts on this page, and in every single one, you've included some sort of snippy remark or outright insult to someone. Have a little decency. And furthermore, stop bashing other people's beliefs. It is your type of attitude that perpetuates religious intolerance, and therefore you can be seen as no better than the terrorists who committed the WTC and pentagon atrocities "in the name of Allah". If it weren't for attitudes like your own, this world would be a much more pleasant place to live. Take a good look at yourself, and instead of asking what good the Wiccans are doing to feed the children in Rumania, ask yourself how YOU as an individual are helping create a safe and tolerant place for these children to live. Attitudes like yours cause ethnic cleansing. Attitudes like yours helped create and maintain the KKK. Attitudes like yours killed thousands upon thousands of innocent Jewish people. Attitudes like yours forced Native Americans from their homes. Millions of innocent lives throughout history have been lost because of attitudes like yours. Jesus Christ was crucified because of attitudes like yours. Take a good look at yourself. You should be ashamed. DO something to help end all the bloodshed and misery and change your attitude.

"Does this make any sense, or are you so addled by liberalism that Donne's spiritual crisis just seems stupid? Religion, if it is genuine, is not merely a theory of knowledge, a body of magical beliefs, or a soft, therapeutic self-esteem boost. It is confrontation with that which transcends all of our understandings, hypocrisies, failures, weaknesses, and selfish desires."

Donne's "spiritual crisis", as you call it, does not seem stupid to me. Who am I to judge that? There is no way for us to know what he felt - even through words. My spiritual experience and yours would be completely different even if we followed the same "religion". And religion can be all of those things you mentioned. Religion is personal; it's about your personal relationship with the Divine. There is no wrong way to do it. What works for you might not work for me. And we have no right to tell each other that the way we do it is the only right way, or that each other's beliefs are wrong or invalid.
You are right about it transcending our understanding of reality. You are right that it isn't easy. To know the Divine, you must first know yourself. You must face Truth. Not all of our souls are the same; we do not have the same needs.
I never said that it was easy or trivial, or that it took no effort or sacrifice.
And not all Wiccans use magick for personal gain. The ability to manipulate energy to bring about a certain positive outcome, such as healing or peace, is to be treated with responsibility. And, the ability to tap into those Divine Earth and Human energies must be developed.
Even though there may be a few people who call themselves Wiccan (or any other religion, for that matter) might use it for their own selfish agenda, whether that's shock value or greed, those people do not reflect the entire Wiccan community. It's pretty rude to make a general assumtion about an entire religion based on the actions of a few people who misunderstand the religion themselves.

"Does this make any sense, or are you so addled by liberalism that Donne's spiritual crisis just seems stupid? "

Donne's spiritual crisis is only relevent from the perspectve of Christianity. The Daghda might think the perfect release to be a hot meal after a long day of work. Lugh might think the ultimate connection to the Divinity to be a day of skillful demonstration. The Morrighan might think death the only true way to Divine Union. Aphrodite might think orgasm coupled with true love to be the perfect route. Marduk might think possessing the tablets of fate the only way to Divine Union. It is all a matter of perspective and context. Daoism teaches that union of opposites in perfect balance and transition is the only way to Immortality. Native Americans teach that Power leads to Union with Divinity.

You are making the mistake of letting your limited experience and perspective define the world for you.

Donne's perspective is the only one that makes sense if we posit the Omniscient, Omnipotent Creator of the universe. Your speculation about demiurge figures does not interest me. It's naive Gnosticism dressed up in pseudo-Celtic clothing.

You seem fond of calling me ignorant. Why don't you take a look at Elaine Pagels's The Gnostic Gospels for a devastating critique of the philosopical underpinnings of paganism? We might have something to talk about if you understood why Christianity rejects dualism and the idea of attaining one's own salvation.

The mystical teachings of the Kabbalah state that as man climbs the tree of life he becomes increasingly more divine. The Kabbalah teaches that man in his most basic state shares divinity with God-- commonly referred to as microcosm-macrocoms --, and it is the duty of man to transgress his limitations and become one with God (Divine Union).

"It's naive Gnosticism dressed up in pseudo-Celtic clothing."

I'm sure you could have done better. I can only assume that your generalities are an attempt to keep yourself from being forced into a stance that may be shown to be incorrect.

"You seem fond of calling me ignorant. "

I'm fairly certain that I have yet to call you ignorant. I believe I have seen that as a response from others, but I have not resorted to such weak accusations.

"Why don't you take a look at Elaine Pagels's The Gnostic Gospels for a devastating critique of the philosopical underpinnings of paganism? "

Again with the generalities. Paganism or Neo-Paganism? I can state right now that if Elaine Pagels was speaking of the "philosophical underpinnings" of historical paganism then she obviously has no idea what she is talking about. Simply by the fact that in history "paganism" never existed. Also, there is no such thing as a single philosophy within paganism. So as such, if she were to devote any time and space to a discussion of the philosophy of historical paganism then she was in truth doing nothing more than trying to validate personal opinions on something that has never in actuality existed.

"We might have something to talk about if you understood why Christianity rejects dualism and the idea of attaining one's own salvation."

Christianity professes dualism. God and Lucifer. Light (Creation) and Dark (pre-Creation). Salvation and Sin. This is the nature of dualism.

Christianity is not a dualistic religion. God is supreme, and while the Devil attempts to rival God, it is not within his power to actually do so. Christians are not Manichees. You keep accusing me of historical ignorance, but you are totally unaware of the significant theological thought of the Church Fathers, such as St Augustine.

You may enjoy linguistic terrorism such as playing with the meaning of jargon such as 'neo-Paganism,' but I don't see what it accomplishes. As well, if you are going to cite the Qabala, you ought to attend to its internal requirements: you should be a married Jewish man not less than forty years of age, who has studied the Tanakh and the Talmud incessantly for at least twenty years.

Please do not respond to my posts point-by-point. The ability to form a cohesive argument is a requirement for being taken seriously.

Christianity is by definition a dualistic religion. So long as it shows opposing forces then it is dualist. You can ignore it or sugarcoat it all you want, but that doesn't change the facts. Whether the Devil can ever be God's equal is beyond the point.

I enjoy knowing exactly what I am talking about before I rattle off some halfbaked nonsense. There is an obvious and extreme difference between Wicca, Neo-Paganism, and Paganism. In order to have a serious conversation, using the proper labels for the subjects is necessary.

I do not need to be a Jewish Kabbalist in order to cite the Kabbalah. All I need is to be able to quote it.

"Please do not respond to my posts point-by-point. The ability to form a cohesive argument is a requirement for being taken seriously."

This is entirely too humorous. You mean "general" not "cohesive", right? I don't need to argue. I'm pointing out your errors and asking for clarification in your generalizations. I can show examples for everything I state. You can only continue with the generalizations. Looks to me like you got noticed at some point in time for your ability to argue and debate and now you think you have some type of skill in it. Either that or someone made the comment of how knowledgeable you seemed because of your generalizations, and now you use generalizations to continue to support your ego.

In order to properly speak about pre-Christian religions you have to specify what religion and culture you are talking about. Otherwise you are making generalizations that will not be supported by the evidence. There is far too much variety in the practices of one culture to the next. Even within cultures of similar origins there is obvious difference.

You are not listening. Do not argue by denying my premises. Dualism is the idea that the world "is under the dominion of opposing forces" (Webster.) Christianity teaches that it is not. The world is under the dominion of God.

In this area, the idea that the Devil is not the equal of God is of absolute importance. The Devil is a force for evil, but his evil is as contingent, limited, and impotent as himself, in the face of the Omniscient, Omnipotent Creator of the universe. I hope this is clear. In a small-o orthodox Christian view, there cannot a principle or principality of evil that can oppose the goodness of God.

If you're going to meaningfully cite the Sefer ha'Zohar, you had better understand it. Qabalism contains an internal claim that only certain people are capable of understanding it. That's a more significant claim than you appear to think. For me to cite a translation of the Popol Vuh, does not demonstrate that I understand the intentions or the worldview of the authors of the original medieval Mayan work. Even assuming a useful, accurate translation, there are enormous conceptual problems for me to overcome in order to approach a Mayan worldview - if that is even possible. Different cultures see such things as sex, causality, space, death, animals, caste, and time in fundamentally differing ways. As my citation of the work might easily misconstrue the meaning, or the context of the meaning, the citation is not necessarily valid. You haven't proven that your citation of Qabalism is of any value, nor have you answered my challenge to it.

I haven't needed to talk about any particular pre-Christian religions in my posts because wicca is a modern phenomenon. I cite Gardiner. Give me a counterclaim to debate. Make some of your claims explicitly.

I'm trying to be polite. You'll notice I haven't yet stooped to crassly speculating on your character. Please cut it the fuck out if you feel you have anything worth saying.

1 : a theory that considers reality to consist of two irreducible elements or modes
2 : the quality or state of being dual or of having a dual nature
3 a : a doctrine that the universe is under the dominion of two opposing principles one of which is good and the other evil b : a view of human beings as constituted of two irreducible elements (as matter and spirit)

Let us look at the first part of the definition. Christianity teaches there are only two types of existence -- with God (or Jesus) and without God.Christianity teaches of the flesh and the spirit. And that the God and the Devil exist in opposition. It is irrelevent whether God is the only true power in existence, because the devil is not God and therefore they are not one and the same.

Let us look at the second part of the definition.
Christianity teaches of the flesh and the spirit. It also teaches to forego the flesh for the spirit in an effort to attain to Salvation. In a sense, this (although inadvertently) states that the succumbing to the flesh hinders the right to Salvation. That is opposition again. Any time there is opposition, there is by neccessity two separate points. This is by definition dualistic.

Your statements are only correct if you ignore the rest of the definition of dualism and opt for the single aspect of the definition that supports your claims.

Claims are just that claims. Kabbalism is a study of a mystical science. It involves many levels of understanding and comprehension, as can be evidenced by the various directions taken in the study of the Kabbalah by the Hebrew Kabbalists. Some take it at face value, others study the numerology involved. Some think it a practical guide. It is a matter of interpretation, as all things are left to be. The Kabbalah also claims that you can not begin study of the Kabbalah until you are at least 40 years old. Yet some of the most influential and greatest of Kabbalistic scholars began their studies in the 20's and died before they even reached the age of 40.

Just what exactly was your challenge? I believe it was "define Divine Union". Of which I have done. Using an example from the Kabbalah was a matter of choice, I am quite capable of coming up with others.

"I haven't needed to talk about any particular pre-Christian religions in my posts because wicca is a modern phenomenon. I cite Gardiner. Give me a counterclaim to debate. Make some of your claims explicitly."

I had to quote this because I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish with this diversion. Wicca is a modern phenomenon, we've already agreed upon that many times. Unfortunately, you have yet to stick to wicca. You have since jumped to paganism according to Elaine Pagels -- as if there is some general pagan philosophy (message #132: please define Divine Union). Then you proceeded with some off the wall concept of post "Burning Times" (whatever they are supposed to be) paganism (message #137: sorry). If you haven't needed to talk about it, why do you keep bringing it up?

I'm not the one claiming anything. I am refuting your claims and challenging you to support them. You are the one who has claimed: "Wicca is not intellectually responsible" and "Christianity is not dualistic". In the process of attempting to describe Wicca you have since jumped to Paganism and Neo-Paganism and some erroneous concept of post burning times something or other -- I'm not sure what. You attempted to use Elaine Pagels' work to back up your claims. So I asked you to specify just exactly what was being referred to when you stated "pagan philosophy" -- whether you were referring to neo-Pagan or paleo-Pagan. To which you failed to respond. I stated all of my points up front and gave examples (message #128: Interesting historical view ~ Nathan and message #130: Limited experience leads to....).

I'm glad you are being polite, but whether you are or not means squat to me. I'm quite capable of handling any emotional eruptions you might suffer from. If you choose to ignore the basics of history and the nature of Wicca, Neo-Paganism and Classical Paganism then that is your choice. But in doing so you are going to incite comments from others. If you can't back up your claims, you might save yourself the trouble of not making them. Because, inevitibly you will get challenged to support them.

Don't you have a job or something? I am not obligated to refute every single post you put up. Sorry, I don't have the time. I try to address the main points. Call me intellectually irresponsible, if you want.

Let's deal with dualism first. You can call Christianity dualistic if you want, but the Catholic Encyclopedia backs my claim that Christianity is theistically monistic. For me, that's the relevant issue here. It's what I claimed in this post, and I have no supported my definition. Go ahead and declare yourself the winner if it makes you happy, but while Christianity may be interpreted as dualistic in some senses of the word, my claim that it "rejects dualism" cannot be argued with.

While there are cosmetic differences between pagan religions, neo-paganism and wicca, there are no differences of significance to a Christian. It doesn't matter if you pray to Apollo, Apollyon, a chicken, or some Celtic spirit. All that is relevant is that you are not praying to the Creator of the universe. You might note as well that wiccan sources use Paganism as a synonym or near-synonym for wicca, which need not be a problem, except that you have only argued my ignorance as a counterclaim. Give me definitions and back them up with sources.

And while you're at it, you can try defending the intellectual rigour of this google search.

Christianity may be monotheistic, but that does not mean it is not dualistic also. I'm happy the Catholic Encyclopedia says that, but unfortunately it is not the most reliable resource for research. Except where the opinion of Catholics are concerned.

There are more than cosmetic differences between wicca, paganism, and neo-paganism -- but you wouldn't understand that, because you don't have the experience to be able to comprehend the differences.

Actually if you really want to get down to the nuts and bolts of things, what you call the Creator of the universe doesn't differentiate between what names the Creator might be called within a culture. Do you need examples of this?

Wiccan sources, particularly the Witches' Voice, do not claim Wiccan and Paganism to be synonymous. Any serious look into the use of the words would reveal the most basic understanding.

It comes down to this:

"All Wiccans are Pagan, but not all Pagans are Wiccan."

quoted from the Witches Voice: "What We Don't Offer: WitchVox does NOT teach Witchcraft, Wicca
or any forms of Paganism, nor do we give out spells, affirmations or charms ... "

Need I stress "WICCA OR ANY FORMS OF PAGANISM"?

If I were to gather anything from your neat little search, it would be that many people erroneously equate Wicca with Witchcraft, not Wicca with Paganism in general. But, that is a whole new bag of worms there.

Christianity may be monotheistic, but that does not mean it is not dualistic also.

You did not read my post closely enough. Christianity is theistically monistic. If you don't understand why that means it cannot be dualistic, there is nothing further to discuss. The Catholic Encyclopedia is a totally legitimate source of basic theology such as this, considering that the theology in question was promulgated ca. 400 AD, and not questioned by any doctrinally orthodox Christians anywhere. In other words, Protestants, Orthodox, the Nestorian churches, and pretty much any other church established before 1850.

All your arguments seem to reduce to my being unqualified to form an opinion because of my lack of wiccan initiation. Obviously, I can't argue that point. It's a black-box argument. But you might ask yourself why you should be considered convincing in a public forum if the information needed to judge the case is not publically available.

You see, it isn't enough for christians to claim to be non-dualistic. Christians are wrong about all sorts of stuff, so everything said by christians about the christian religion is dubious. In fact, if christians understood their religion as well as heathens do, they'd all realize how wrong they are. Then they'd all traipse off into the enchanted woods to worship the fairy princesses with S R and his coven.

It is easy enough to open up a dictionary and read the definition of a word. But, instead of making that small amount of effor people want to just use words as they see fit, changing and ignoring their definitions as it suits them.

By the way, I'm neither Wiccan or a member of any coven.

But it is nice to know that you can't offer up an relevent information and must resort to childish remarks.

Is that childish enough for you? You certainly don't seem to have an adult understanding of dictionaries. Your interpretation of the three senses of dualism given by whichever dictionary you used proved that. If you're going to keep belittling others for their allegedly inadequate research skills, it would be a good idea to develop some of your own.

I don't know what I'd call someone who thinks any usage of a word must adhere to all three senses given in his dictionary, while completely ignoring the fact that one of the senses applies specifically and directly to the subject at hand. A genius, I guess.

The multiple definitions in the dictionary serve to attempt to promote a better understanding of the word in various applications. It doesn't matter if there is one definition for the word given, or five hundred, because they all share the same concept.

Look at the definition for dualism. All parts come down to "two types" or "two natures". That is the importance of the definition of "dualism".

Were Christianity to be monistic there would be no differentiation between the flesh and the soul. There would also be no differentiation between Salvation and the torment of Hell. There would also be no differentiation between God and the Devil. There is a difference between monotheism and monism.

Monism is defined as "a view that there is only one kind of ultimate substance" and "the view that reality is one unitary organic whole with no independent parts" and "a viewpoint or theory that reduces all phenomena to one principle".

As you can see, by definition Christianity is not monistic.

You are quite right, it is impossible to make any sort of true and proper judgement based upon Wicca without actual experience. Without experience, you are only speculating.

"Wicca is not a respectable or respected intellectual or spiritual movement. "

Interesting opinion you have there. What drives you to this opinion, programming or experience?

"There is no corpus of wiccan knowledge, no wiccan praxis, no wiccan philosophy. "

Hmm...actually there is. This is what most refer to as the Book of Shadows, passed down from one coven to the next within each tradition -- ie, Gardnerian Wicca, Alexandrian Wicca, Feri Tradition, and so on and so forth. Just because your resources are limited does not mean they do not exist. It just means you do not possess the ingenuity to find the information without having it spoonfed to you.

"Wicca offers me nothing to replace Christianity or naturalism except wacky platitudes about energy and horned gods that can't be held to any particular meaning. "

Your lack of understanding does not constitute failure on the part of Wicca.

"What exactly is a wiccan doing when she casts a spell? Does it work or does it not?"

Hands on physics? You'd be suprised what science supports without actually stating so. Yes it does work, given the person actually knows what they are doing. Otherwise they are just playing like anything else. Fake it till you make applies in many instances -- as is evidenced by your knowledge of this subject.

You cite a bunch of texts of totally dubious provenance, and then claim that is equivalent to the staggeringly large, 2000-year history of Christian philosophy and praxis. You claim that wicca is as valid a source of physical knowledge as scientific naturalism.

Christianity is just a tad older than 2,000 years. Again your lack of historical knowledge becomes evident.

You jump back and forth between wicca, neo-paganism, and paganism as if they are one and the same with no regard to any real knowledge of the subjects. You generalize your statements regarding these topics. You fail to support your accusations with any striking comparisons or evidence. It would appear your statements are based solely upon your individual opinion of a subject upon which you have limited, if any, actual understanding.

While this may be acceptable in the circles you run with, it doesn't cut it for me. If you would like to place an actual stake in this conversation and bring up some definitive examples, I will be happy to continue. Otherwise, you are not accomplishing anyting but shouting your opinion. Which I've already heard, quite a few times.

I might agree with you more if you would actually put forth some supporting evidence for your statements.

I'm not sure why you would read "The Golden Bough" at all. No serious scholar would base any real knowledge upon that piece of derranged work. Any religious historian knows that its only use is for a study of how people have perceived religions over time. It ranks right up there with "The White Goddess" and the works of Iolo Morganawg.

Considering the common knowledge that Wicca originated in the early 1950's, why would you make the statement of "when The Book of Shadows, passed down in secret within covens since the Burning Times, is such an irrefutable source?" ?

Once again, you jump from Wicca to some erroneous concept of Paganism in general. And you made the comment about the necessity of a cohesive argument to me.

This game of hopscotch and generalizations may work to confuse and overcome others, but it wont work with me. My knowledge of pre-Christian religions and the evolution of Wicca and Neo-Paganism is more than adequate for any discussion I choose to enter into.

I was making the point that even The Golden Bough is a better source than anything you've given me so far (as well as being of great historical significance as an influence on the likes of Yeats and Eliot.) Give me a source to criticise, he said for the third time. I'm at the third-largest university library in North America as I write this, so if you give me titles and authors of any merit whatsoever I'll actually look them up.

Give me a source. Show me how wicca is a rigorously practiced religion.

Well if you had been attempting to make that point, you failed miserably. But hey, points for trying, right? Who was influenced by the work doesn't matter. Many people were influenced by Iolo Morganawg, because at the time they didn't know better. Luckily, we know better now. Well some of us do anyway.

I haven't given you any sources, so technically no "The Golden Bough" is not any better. You need at least two sources to make a comparison.

What do you want a source for? Wicca? Classical Paganism? Witchcraft? Neo-Paganism? Specifics, such as the Celts, Norse, Greeks, Romans, Egyptians? Or perhaps you want some source for this nonexistent "Pagan philosophy" you keep bringing up.

A source would show how Wicca is a rigorously practiced religion? How is that? Are you trying to tell me that by reading a book you can determine whether someone practices the religion rigorously or not? I'm assuming that because the Bible states that people must do this and must do that, it is a rigorously practiced religion. No matter how many people break the 10 Commandments or go against the Word of God or the teachings of Jesus Christ.

The only real source you are going to find is an actual person. Take some time to find a Wiccan who actually follows the rules of the religion, and then spend some time observing them. I would suggest a Traditional Wiccan (ie Gardnerian or Alexandrian), because they would be your best bets. It will most likely be difficult, just as it would be difficult to find a Christian who obeyed all the rules in the Bible. But hey, if you want to see whether the religion is practiced rigorously or not, its the only way to go. Christianity isn't even a rigorously practiced religion today.

But of course, this concept of a "rigorously practiced religion" is all mute. After all the nature of the practices does not determine whether any beliefs are a religion or not.

I can't prove that there is anything in the loose, syncretistic, unscholarly collection of belief marching under the ravelled banner of wicca; it has no corpus of knowledge, praxis, or philosophy. Also, when I cited something called The Book of Shadows, I didn't mean to actually claim it as a source.

By the way, irony is when you say the opposite of what you mean. That's what I meant by citing The Golden Bough.

7. The act of passing on information and power, through the nature of tradition (metaphoric and literal).

8. Living by the Oath

** Philosophy, a la Wicca:

1. Ethics of Wicca

2. The nature of human life and its purpose, a la animism, psychism, and pantheism/panentheism

3. Karma (slightly altered from the true doctrine of Karma)

4. Law of Return

5. The nature of Deities

6. Social order

7. The nature of the Oath

Most of this information is not given to outsiders or the uninitiated (those who are not Oathbound). All Traditional Wiccans are extremely secretive, as part of the guidelines of their Tradition. As I've stated before, simply because you are unaware of this information does not mean it does not exist. In all likelihood the information you have come across about Wicca is either watered down (coming from eclectic Wiccans who were not able to enter into Traditional Wicca) or come from sources opposed to Wicca (such as Christian scholars) with obvious bias.

Concerning your comment on irony and "The Golden Bough", I obviously didn't catch it, and so I apologise.

"Christianity and Paganism are fundamentally opposed, because Pagan worship of the flesh and humanisation of God was the basis for the unfathomable horrors of the ancient world. "

Who taught you your history? Shall we look at the Crusades or the Witch Trials? The sheer numbers of people killed in the name of Christianity and conversion are incomprehensible for most. Please specify what pagan religion you are speaking of when you say "Pagan worship of the flesh", because I would like to hear the practices you refer to when you say "Pagan worship" so generally.

"Today, we do kill and destroy, but no one in the modern world can bring the same indifference to it that we would have seen in a Roman lord's face while having a slave beaten - or tortured, or literally torn to pieces for an entertainment at dinner. "

How about the Militant Muslims who shoot women and men because they do not follow the word of Allah? How about when the celebrations afterwards? Or when they parade the dead through the streets? Sounds like entertainment to me. Sounds very indifferent to the basic value of human life. All in the name of the same God Christians follow. How about God's punishment of choice being stoning for just about any punishment noted in the Bible? Sounds very indifferent to me.

"We do evil, but not with the cold ease that Carthage showed when it sacrificed 5,000 children to Baal for victory in the Second Punic War."

Are you ignoring the extensive history of sacrifice in Judaism and early Christianity?

"Christianity arose among slaves because it taught that each person was of transcendental value, that each person was equally beloved of the Lord of the Universe, to whom the earth and all it kingdoms were as a footstool. Christianity demands of us that we strive ceaselessly toward our own salvation and the betterment of the world. "

Your history is very strange. Judaism arose among slaves. It is quite possible, and has been theorized by not a few scholars, that Judaism was the natural evolution of the Egyptian folk beliefs that were centered around the concept of innate divinity in humans and oriented around a supreme deity (yet not without the existence of lesser deities). Judaism taught the path to divinity in ever increasingly pure states. Christianity arose because it was a cult existing within Judaism, whose views were slightly different than those of the Judaic masses. The most common reference of this (albeit from a much later date) is the fact that Christians believed Jesus to be the Savior, while Jews referred to him simply as just another Christ in a long line of Christs. In the early stages of Christianity it was almost wiped out and its followers fled, dividing into two groups. Each group continued their practices. One became Christianity as we know it today, the other became Gnosticism.

There is only one Diety. However, there are countless demons and other evil beings, and this Legba and Freda must be of that sort. But, it is still a good cautionary tale of what happens to people who fool around with witchcraft.

"There is only one Diety. However, there are countless demons and other evil beings, and this Legba and Freda must be of that sort. But, it is still a good cautionary tale of what happens to people who fool around with witchcraft."

A proper interpretation of the bible would show the existence of multiple god. These mutliple deities are then watched over, and in a sense governed, by the deity referred to as the Lord God in the Bible. It was the work of these gods that resulted in the creation of the universe, the earth, animals, plants, and then man and woman. All things created were created in their image. When they showed their work to the Lord God he was pleased, and filled creation with his breath. The gods and goddesses brought about Creation, but it was the breath of the Lord God that brought life into this Creation. It was his gift, his "share of the work".

What is very interesting, that for all the arguing going on between Christians and Wiccans, they actually share a common belief in this respect. Many Wiccans teach of the gods and goddesses, as well as a Supreme Power. Generally they do not name this Supreme Power, or refer to it in any masculine or feminine form. They recognize it as the ultimate and original (as in originating) deity.

Getting drunk and waking up in a ditch might be extremely mystical and spiritual subjects. I may have to do some research.

Maybe I'll skip the ditch part, though. Too uncomfortable. But hey, I can do that with today's a la carte religions, right?

in cvililized countries (none / 0) (#25)

by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 09:34:55 AM PST

we dont wake up in ditches with blackened eyes to show for our missing wallets, we wake up in warm drunk tanks and leave unmolested of body with our personal effects intact in brown envelopes stamped with the imprimatura of the local police department. Now that's christianity!

I suggest you learn a thing or two about a subject before you go spouting off like this. IT makes you apear very ignorant. Wicca is nothing like you describe. Rabbit heads? pentagrams? Nothing like that in any wicca i know. sounds more like satan worship. I was raised wiccan, my mother was raised wiccan, and my grandmother was raised wiccan. things are definitely not as you describe.

"Here's the facts. "Wiccans", "Neopagans" and such like, tend to be young, American and university educated. "

Well, I am neither American nor am I young, though I am University Educated. In fact I know only a few American Wiccans, none of them happen to be young. It has been my experience that the young people this person is talking about merely CLAIM to be wiccan, when in fact they don't know bugger all about Wicca, and are merely trying to irritate their parents and rebel against what they perceive as the norm.

"Not only are the beliefs of Wiccans ridiculous to the point of risibility, they're also provably fabricated and internally inconsistent. " Just take a look at christianity regarding this point.

"The entire religion of Wicca was created out of whole cloth in 1952 by a British Civil Servant called Gerald Gardner. " Wicca has been practiced in my family for generations.

For clarification on the Wiccan Rede please refer to my second post. Wiccan FAQs

"Of course there isn't. Simply to pose the possibility is to see it as ridiculous. People don't become Wiccans in order to carry on the beliefs of their parents. People become Wiccans in order to offend their parents, to try to extract some revenge on Mum and Dad for the terrible crime of having financially supported them for all of their fourteen years of life. There have never been and will never be any second-generation Wiccans, because there is simply no point in being a Wiccan if it isn't going to wind up Ma and Pa. The pagan "tradition" is the actual antithesis of a tradition. Which is why telling a Wiccan to stop wearing his severed rabbit head or his inverted pentagram is absolutely nothing like removing the cross from a Christian school or depriving a Jew of his Star of David. One of these things is to strip a human being of his identity, to remove the very essence of what is important about his humanity. The other is just to tell a silly little child (of whatever age) not to bare his bottom in public"

As i said I am a 6th generation Wiccan. I don't know what all this fluff about rabbit heads and pentagrams is about, sounds more like satanism to me.

"Wiccanism, like the organised simper which goes in the West by the name of "Buddhism", is a religion which, unusually, makes no practical demands whatever on its adherents. A Wiccan doesn't go to hell if they are stopped from making silly hand signs at the customers in McDonalds, in the way that a Muslim can sincerely believe himself to be in danger of if provision is not made for him to make Umrah. Suited to the intellectually flabby, scruffy, lazy slacker teenagers who believe in it, Wicca is not a religion which gives a code by which to live one's life. It has no observances, fasts or obligations to charity. All it is, is a style of dress, a calculated giving of offense to Christians, and the occasional excuse for a booze-up for people too dull or inhibited to be able to open a bottle of whisky without turning it into a piece of amateurish performance art. That's not a religion. It's a pose. And, of course, and not coincidentally, an excuse to ensure that there's no black people invited to your fraternity parties because they're not "Celtic" enough."

Again please refer to my second post.

I really don't understand what this person is ranting about a fashion statement for. I dress much the same as everyone else in the office. and when not working i try to dress for the occasion, a conservative one peice at the beach, work out clothes when i visit the gym, a tasteful evening gown for social events. Again this person doesn't know bugger all about Wicca and really should not ant like this when having suck limited experience with a subject.

Bitter? (5.00 / 1) (#31)

by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 03:06:37 PM PST

"Just take a look at christianity regarding this point"

So, you were saying you aren't a wiccan purely for reasons of adolescent enmity towards christianity?

Do Islamists and Buddhists respond to allegations that their religion is false by bleating about Christ?

What (none / 0) (#41)

by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 07:00:32 PM PST

Sixth generation wiccan...bah...they called it something different back in the day "paganism" and "witchcraft" dont give me this sixth generation stuff. Pagans just needed something to call their hodge podge of misguided beliefs, so the called it "wicca"

Its just a bunch of people that dont know what to believe, so they make up a strait up fairy story, even a child wou8ld lauph at, and they callit wiccan.

If you don't get what he meant by "Fashion statement", maybe you really have convinced yourself that you are a sixth generation wiccan.

Given that wicca is itself a lie, don't you think it reasonable that your parents or grandparents have lied to you about how many generations of your family have been wicca? Many wiccans like to claim that wicca is an unbroken tradition dating back to pre-Christian times; six generations is just a lesser version of that falsehood.

As for the wiccan beliefs, they are hardly worth addressing. To put it simply, wiccans believe in magic. In case you have been blinded by your irrational belief, magic is completely at odds with scientific theory. Scientific theory has given us such wonders as the atom bomb and statistical analysis. Magic has consistently shown no results. Which do you think is correct?

The Wonders of Statistical Analysis (none / 0) (#59)

by Anonymous Reader on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 09:28:25 AM PST

Let's figure out how long it will take until I die.
We start out with the total number of years that I have lived (17). The we take the total number of deaths in that time (0). Then we calculate the average number of deaths per year (0/17 = 0). Then we can use that average to predict the total number of deaths at any time. Let's try 1000 years, shall we? 0 * 1000 = 0. Therefore, after 1000 years, I will have died an average of 0 times. And all this comes from the wonderful science of statistical logic!

You could take your sample from the ages at which other people died, you could calculate the average age of death of the population.

You could also take a sample of, say, 100 old folk, and count how many of them are alive on their 60th, 61st, 62nd... birthday. That lets you calculate the probability of being alive at any given age (within the bounds of the youngest and eldest subject).

Obviously, there are factors to why people die (like diet, location and personal activities), so most statisticians are interested in those, rather than overall averages. But it's a nice project you could do at school.adequacy.org -- because it isn't

Can I please ask you to avoid using profanity in your posts? No offense, but you would get your point across much better if you didn't resort to using vulgar sexual language. Let's try to keep this debate out of the gutter!

This is so sad that someone could actually come up with this, things, because I cannot call them ideas, from their brain. I know it took you less than five seconds to come up with all of this. I really dispise when people begin speaking about things that they have not researched first. Please go to the library, the internet, or ask a real Wiccan about our Religion. Please, your ignorance offends me, and I am pretty sure it offends the Goddess and whatever Patron Deity you serve.

You call yourself "ForestSong" and are an "apprentice high priestess" in something called the "coven of the prism rose." That's the most depressing thing I've heard in ages. I only hope that "prism rose" is some sort of euphemistic vagina reference and your "coven" is an excuse for wild lesbian orgies.

Also, what kind of title is "apprentice high priestess?" Is the next step "journeyman high priestess?" Do you have a union? A set "spells, hexes and other idiocy" pricing scale?

And yes, I've talked to a lot of Wiccans over the years. They're every bit as ignorant and superstitious as evangelical Christians, but at least the evangelicals have a somewhat accurate view of medieval history.
--PeterAre you adequate?

and like you dont do that all the time. eg AMD sweatshops.<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Don't deny AMD's shame (none / 0) (#104)

by Anonymous Reader on Fri Mar 22nd, 2002 at 03:54:15 AM PST

I fail to understand why people still deny the existance of the shameful AMD sweatshops in the far east. It is depressing that people ignore the good work that Adequacy has carried out in exposing AMD and continue to buy their bloodied product to save a few dollars over the patriotic choice.

The overwhelming impression I got from it was that, if I wanted to believe that the words of J. R. R. Tolkien were true, that would be just as wiccan as casting spells that don't do anything.

Wicca a bizarre takeoff on Freemasonry? (none / 0) (#33)

by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 05:37:53 PM PST

Researching Wicca i have noticed that alot of it is stolen from the beliefs of the Masons.

"An yee hurt none" as well as "so mote it be" are both wiccan sayings that are directly taken from the Masonic books. Other things such as 3 rites to become a true "wiccan" are almost the same as the 3 rites needed to become a Mason.

There are quite a few other "coincidents" like these. I believe that wicca took these from freemasonry and not the other way around because Freemasonry has been around for at least 700 years to as long as 3000-4000 years ago.

as Fremasonry has 32 degrees....if wicca does also...this would be sad

On the subject of 2nd Generation Wiccans (none / 0) (#36)

by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 05:57:29 PM PST

Having graduated public school in the early-to-mid 90's I actually had the experience of growing up with a few 2nd generation Wiccans. While the 3 that stick out foremost in my mind WERE admittedly ditzes with no actual concept of their religious beliefs, they certainly weren't any worse off than their Christian equivelents.

Fact of the matter is that earnestly believing that any kind of all-knowing/seeing/living/whatever person-who-isn't-actually-a-person lives in some incomprehensable place in the sky is still stupid. It doesn't matter if it was authentically believed by unwashed short people with bad hygene 3000 years ago or not, it's still pretty dumb. Or as Heller once wrote "Any people that don't comprehend the mechanics of rain don't know the secrets of the universe."

Many (although admittedly not all) of the founding fathers were dieists, and as such placed "freedom of religion" into the bill of rights so that people would be free to express their beliefs, but not actually free to legislate against them. Thus by simple virtue of Christians disliking the Wiccan belief it is legitimized as a religion in need of legal protection. I'm not saying it's not retarded, I'm just saying at least they're being retarded in a fresh manner instead of rehashing the same old crap humanity's had to endure as long as we've been utilizing our eat-holes to make funny noises at one another.

Basically, an 18th century version of "Wicca", except with pseudo-scientific trappings instead of AD&D.

--Peace and much love...

Barnes and Noble, and the wiccans. (none / 0) (#42)

by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 07:06:07 PM PST

This is utter crap I tell you, I go to barnes and noble, way back to the religious centre. What do I get...a bunch of books on pagans and wicca. What happened to the days when you could find good intelligent stuff in barnes and noble? now all i find is some book with a moon on it "the book of shadows".

How original can you get "the book of shadows" it sounds like a bad star wars book that darth geek would read.

Wiccan is a fairly new religon but the roots of the beliefs predates Christianity by a few thousand years. But I supposed that because some modern folk have decided to reawaken these old beliefs that means to you that they have no merit. wiccan is a very deeply profound belief in hhow the world works and where we came from and where we will go, this is the same things that the Bible attemps to answer. Wiccans are NOT solely a bunch of slacker teenagers but a very diverse group of people from all walks of life. Just because in your narrow-minded opinion that it's not a religon is no excuse to oppress them and tell them that they cannot worship how they please. This is just the kid of Christian-spawned bullshit that pisses me off. They dont bother you so leave them alone and maybe we wont have so much fighting goin on

wiccan is a very deeply profound belief in hhow the world works and where we came from and where we will go, this is the same things that the Bible attemps to answer.

When I've got questions about where we come from and how the world works, I ask physicists, biologists and the like. Maybe you should take off your pentagram necklace, pull the ankh out of your nose and do likewise. Damned dirty hippy.

I don't understand how you jump from "Christians have a silly belief system and a history of intolerance" to a conclusion of "therefore I will believe things that are even sillier while talking about Christians in the same terms Hitler used to describe the Jews." Perhaps you can enlighten me.
--PeterAre you adequate?

News for GROWN UPS? (none / 0) (#55)

by Anonymous Reader on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 04:04:52 AM PST

Yes - isn't funny, you critise one religion, while promoting others. Boy, I bet you weren't taught relious tollerance by your parents were you? Perhaps you should be living by the wiccan code

And YE (NOT YOU. YE!) harm none do what ye will...

Your article attempts to lessen someone else's religion. I find this rather stupid since throughout it you promote how you can't rob a Christian of his cross or the star of David from a Jew, yet how many things did Christians (See: Church) rob from Pagans. Not neo - just pagans. Most Christian holidays have some basing on Christian holidays - so as to entice pagans....Go put your head out the window and yell, yell until you're horse, for to degrade ANYONE of a religion, I don't care what it is (Elvis or Jewish OR Wiccan) is not only cruel, but pointless. They believe in it, and are the better for it (Most of the time). For every one poser, or wiccan looney, there are a hundred Christian whack jobs....

AN ye, you moron (none / 0) (#81)

by Anonymous Reader on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 12:35:27 AM PST

an ye harm none, yadda yadda yadda, you moron

degrading religion, GET A GRIP, PEOPLE!
OPEN YOUR SQUINTY WICCAN EYES!!
the article is a SATIRE!
not, of course, that i would expect the majority of the retards who utilise the internet every day to understand such complicated concepts as satire, or sarcasm, or even irony.
if all the pagans in the world are as sad and serious and unable to take a joke as you lot, im actually ashamed to call myself one.
i hereby relinquish my pentagram (the right way up, because it attaches to the chain by the pointy bit at the top and cant go upside down)and leave to join some other religion where the people can recognise humour where they see it.

Understatement (none / 0) (#87)

by Anonymous Reader on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 05:09:04 AM PST

Your article attempts to lessen someone else's religion.

I'd say that article destroyed what little credibility Wicca had. Mind you, I am an atheist, so all religions are equally pointless, stupid and manipulative so far as I can tell. The best thing about religions OTOH is that there are so many of them. I shudder to think what the world would be like if all the religious bigots in the world got together and turned against the atheists.

Stupid? (none / 0) (#100)

by Anonymous Reader on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 02:16:15 PM PST

If you think religion is pointless, then you are a very stupid atheist, indeed. And a bigoted one, to boot.

speaking of insults... (5.00 / 1) (#58)

by Anonymous Reader on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 07:32:50 AM PST

I think the biggest insult here is reporting a story full of inaccuracies and lies as if it is fact, and not as the radical babblings of someone who is clearly out to promote christianity to the detriment of other religions. Being a wiccan means incorporating the power of Diety into your life on a daily basis in a very personal way. If you did an ounce of factual research instead of spouting anti-wiccan rhetoric, you would know just how much of your "information" was incorrect and insulting. It is propaganda like yours that gives people false perceptions about wicca, and causes fear and intolerance. Wicca is based on the tenants of love, doing unto others as you would have them do to you, (harm none), caring for the planet, and caring for all creatures. I have known more wiccans who lived good, moral lives than so called Christians. I admit that some young people who grab onto wicca as the result of trends, tv, or movies, are often NOT well educated in true wiccan practices, and give all of wicca a bad name. But the majority of wiccans I know are well out of their teens and are very realistic about their lives and the role of wicca in them. Please attempt to report the truth in the future, because being completely ignorant but pretending to be an expert is extremely insulting. I'm embarrassed for you but Blessed be.

Being a wiccan means incorporating the power of Diety into your life on a daily basis in a very personal way.

And this would not be true of being a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim or a Hindu? What makes being Wiccan so special?

I have known more wiccans who lived good, moral lives than so called Christians.

And your credentials to judge what is good and moral would be...? Oh, you're a Wiccan. Sorry.

Please attempt to report the truth in the future...

And your credentials to determine exactly what 'the truth' is would be...? I'm assuming that for you, 'the truth' is 'anything that casts Wicca in a positive light' or 'what I believe to be true.'

I'm embarrassed for you but Blessed be.

Could you bow to the seven directions and burn some sage for us while you're at it? Or is that some other religion? I'm sorry to harsh your buzz, but I find your post just as intolerant of Christianity as you think the article is of Wiccans. What happened to being based on tenets (not tenants) of love, and caring for all creatures?

GRUMPY GIRL

hi grumpy, thanks for you response... (none / 0) (#77)

by Anonymous Reader on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 08:00:13 PM PST

Isn't it funny that NO WHERE in my post did i say that i was a wiccan???? So re-read your comments to me and feel very, very stupid. I did not say that Christians, Jews, or Muslims were any more OR less "special" than Wicca, nor do I believe that.

And your credentials to judge what is good and moral would be...? Oh, you're a Wiccan. Sorry.

Again...I never stated that I was a wiccan. For your information, and I hope this eases your little mind, I was raised Christian, therefore my basic beliefs of good and moral are Biblical. I truly hate to burst your bubble.

What happened to being based on tenets (not tenants) of love, and caring for all creatures?

Well, first of all, thank you for correcting my spelling, perhaps you should have checked your own....or is TENETS something I've never heard of?
Secondly, I don't think that I posted out of hatred. I was simply speaking against intolerance. I am in no way intolerant of Christianity. It is the occasional small-minded Christian I tend to have a problem with. But you are clearly not one of these people, as shown by the stereotypical and meant-to-cause-great-offense comment, "Could you bow to the seven directions and burn some sage for us while you're at it? Or is that some other religion?" Witty, witty girl. You should be a writer..so well thought out and factual. I look forward to your next reply. Blessed be and GOD BLESS!!!!!!!!!!!!

ten·et
n.
An opinion, doctrine, or principle held as being true by a person or especially by an organization.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Probably from Medieval Latin, from Latin, third person sing. present indicative of tenre, to hold. See ten- in Indo-European Roots.]

My (partially flippant) comment about bowing to the seven directions and burning sage was not actually meant to cause great offense. It was meant to get you (and others) to think about the wisdom of just randomly picking ceremonies out of other religions and cultures, and performing them out of context because they are "cool" or they make you feel good.

How respectful is that? To my mind, not very. But then, I'm so "small-minded" that maybe I'm missing something in the translation. However, I'm not so small-minded that I can't come up with a correct word for you every now and then.

Oh, and I'm not Christian. Not yet, anyway.

well if you do become a Christian... (none / 0) (#103)

by Anonymous Reader on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 05:38:51 PM PST

It was meant to get you (and others) to think about the wisdom of just randomly picking ceremonies out of other religions and cultures, and performing them out of context because they are "cool" or they make you feel good.

I hope you first look into the "christian" ceremonies and their beginnings in paganism, such as Easter, christmas trees, easter eggs, candles, incense, etc....
It's very interesting actually. And thank you for the language lesson, you learn something new every day.

My understanding of Easter is that it's a celebration of Jesus' crucifixion, resurrection from the dead, and ascension into Heaven. Is there a corresponding Pagan event? I've heard that Christmas trees and Easter eggs came from earlier Pagan ceremonies.

As for the language lesson, you're welcome. I try to learn something new every day, but some days I'm more open to it than others. My comments on this site are generally a pretty good indication of which days are which.

Easter (5.00 / 1) (#110)

by Anonymous Reader on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 08:57:21 PM PST

Easter is/was the feast of Eostre, a european pagan fertility goddess.

There are always going to be people who spout off about things they have no knowledge of. Wicca is a religion recognized by the US military, and federally, although not by every state. The reason it is accepted as so (and has been since the 70's incidentally) is because it does meet the three main requirements of a religion. I don't insult christianity by running around spreading false info about the beliefs.. such as "They symbolically cannibalize their savior! They say he came to save them, and then they ATE HIM!! And they let him hang around on a stick in the ground for a bit too.. maybe for tenderization?" or some such nonsense. The majority of the attacks on wicca are much like that, and the info is just as incorrect.

Please, do us all a favor and realize that this world was not created for any one person as an individual or any one singular group of people. It was created for all of us. You have as much right to spread false accusations about my lifestyle as I do about yours.

But I don't stoop to that level.

Aimee Seaton
NJ, USA

WOW (none / 0) (#67)

by Anonymous Reader on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 11:17:29 AM PST

Is that really true about Christianity? OMG!

I'm never going to church again. Ah well, it was boring anyway.

spouting off (none / 0) (#82)

by Anonymous Reader on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 12:37:34 AM PST

indeed there will always be people who spout off about things they have no knowledge of. you, for instance. cleary you have no knowledge of comedy. you should shut your grid.

Re: spouting off (none / 0) (#84)

by Anonymous Reader on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 02:45:51 AM PST

Formulating a grammatically correct post, complete with capital letters, complete sentences, and informed content does not mean that I am lacking a sense of humor or have no knowledge of comedy. I am very sure that even if the original post was posted as a joke, the majority of the ones to follow were not.

These are very important questions, considering your location in New Jersey:

When you go off to do your rituals in the woods, do you use public lands?

Do you own a particular stand of trees that you use?

Do you ever trespass on private property?

This is very important as several of my neighbors do not guard their farms against attack.

-------------------------"Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

RE: Questions (none / 0) (#91)

by Anonymous Reader on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 09:54:32 AM PST

"These are very important questions, considering your location in New Jersey:"

Oh look. A neighbor.
~
"When you go off to do your rituals in the woods, do you use public lands?"

Yes, on occasion. Some rituals are held in state and federally funded parks. All rules and laws are obeyed for each property, and at all of the rituals I have been to, we did clean ups before hand and afterwards, leaving the parks in better condition than when we got there. And before you go writing to your congress person, or finger paint a picket sign, the issue has already gone through the courts. Any group can use federally and state funded parks, or national forests, provided they follow the rules of the park and the law.
~
Do you own a particular stand of trees that you use?

Not personally, no. However, there are many pagans with farmland and open land who do hold rituals on their property. You'd actually be suprised how many wiccans and pagans there are, or people with open minds and a true sense of what christianity teaches. Statistically, you know in person at least 1 pagan. So don't think that all of your neighbors would be so supportive of ousting a local landowner based on religion.
~
Do you ever trespass on private property?

No more than you do. Provided of course you don't. If you are insinuating that rituals are held on someones property who is not aware, I can't deny it hasnt ever happened. However, Id say it happens far less than people hunting on private property. I personally have never been part of such a ritual, and no law-respecting pagan would. And before you decide to insult the moral character of pagans, there are just as many corrupt members of the pagan society as there are in the christian one comparitively.
~
"This is very important as several of my neighbors do not guard their farms against attack."

Oh please. A pagan is no more likely to break the law than a Christian or Jew. Less so, actually, if the pagan has accepted the threefold law. I suggest you do some research using materials not funded by the Christian Coalition.

Oh no, I hope I haven't offended a wiccan! Whatever will become of my soul if I have? Please don't put a hex on me or drink any blood while participating in any rituals designed to bring about my destruction.

All I really wanted to determine was whether or not wiccans would invade a man's space. I feel as though I should take steps to prevent my farm from becoming a haven for sin and I am sure that everyone within a dozen or so miles of me feels the same way, most of us attend the same church and hold the same views. We also would not 'oust' a local landowner if we found out the he was a wiccan. He and his family would be given ample opportunity to make amends with God long before the situation required any direct action from us.

-------------------------"Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

Aimee in NJ and Right Hand "Man" (none / 0) (#118)

by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 11:37:53 AM PST

Hi Aimee,

Seems we share more than our name...

This "Right Hand Man" person here is obviously content with his ignorance. It seems that he has not paid any attention to what we have tried to explain about Wicca and Paganism. There he goes, talking about drinking blood and casting curses. Are we speaking the same language here?? The Wiccan rede is basically the Golden Rule re-worded. So we can correctly state that generally, Pagans do not go around harming other creatures with Magick.
Right Hand Man, your harmful words will come back to you. We needn't do anything to enhance the karma you set for yourself. You will get what you deserve in the end.

Sorry to barge into someone else's thread, but I just couldn't resist. That 'karma' thing of yours is awfully convenient, isn't it? That way, you can comfort yourself that anyone who doesn't believe as you do will get 'what they deserve in the end.'

Why are Right Hand Man's words harmful to you? They are his opinions and as such he is entitled to them, just as you are. In condemning him, and in saying that he'll get what he deserves through bad karma, how are you any different from the evangelical, born-again Christian who tells you you're going to Hell?

Something to think about. Ponder, even. I dare ya.

If Wicca isn't a religion, neither is Christianity (none / 0) (#73)

by Anonymous Reader on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 03:21:39 PM PST

Wow. Teen-agers wore something that shocked people. This is news?

What IS news, as the story rightly points out, is that their First Amendment rights were violated by overreacting school officials. Instead of using the "offensive" items as a springboard for discussing freedom of speech and the individual's responsibility for forming her own opinions, the school shut them down.

That's sad, and also illegal.

If you go looking for stupidity and silliness, you will find them in ANY religion. If you go looking for foolish behavior in teen-agers, you will find it in teens of ANY religion. That's human nature.

Freedom of religion in the United States means you are free to follow any religious path you choose. It's an important and fundamental right, and one which I would not see changed for any reason.

You are also free to believe my path is silly. However, I will point out that a growing number of Wiccans are doing serious research into the religions of ancient history, eliminating some of the excesses of their predecessors' work, forming legal churches and corporations to serve their religious communities, and undertaking public service projects in the name of their gods. If that's not religion, I don't know what is.

Here ya go:
http://www.tylwythteg.com/caselaw.html<br>
It would seem that our courts think so.<br>
Pay special attn. to Dettmer vs. Landon. Notice how it never made it
to the Supreme Court. Why, you ask? You're smart folks, YOU figure
that out.<br>
This is an interesting website, and an interesting bunch of people too.
Glad I found you. You might not say the same about me. ;)

Jsm, the author of this piece, is a citizen of the United Kingdom -- as are about a third of the editors here. He believes (quite rightly) that the United States is a festering sewer of primitive superstitions and that your courts and legal tradition aren't worth a bucket of warm spit.

Still, we're glad to have you on the site. Welcome aboard.--PeterAre you adequate?

It's certainly true that Wicca meets what one might call the civil requirements for being a religion, just as long-term homosexual relationships meet the criteria for civil marriage.

For me, the more interesting question is, does Wicca demand things of its adherents that aren't just projections of beliefs that they held anyway.

In any case, you are certainly welcome here so long as you are interesting and controversial.Nathan--Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

A religion is defined by its adherents (none / 0) (#90)

by Anonymous Reader on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 09:29:28 AM PST

I converted to paganism after being raised as a Christian at the age of 23, after marrying and having a child. It was an adult decision of an adult seeking an adult religion. I am sure there are kids who use the name of my religion to do stupid things. They go right up there with the people who tell women that any use of pain relievers in labor violates God's command, or the people who blow themselves up and kill innocent civilians "for God".

MOST pagans are ordinary men and women, in ALL walks of life, rich and poor, in all professions, involved with many different things. Just like your average Christian or Muslim or Jew. Sorry to burst your bubble.

A lot of opinion very little fact (none / 0) (#92)

by Anonymous Reader on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 10:32:29 AM PST

"According to dictionary.com, a "religion" is a sincerely held set of beliefs, part of a tradition and a way of life. Wicca fails on all three counts. "

The American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Ed. states:

religion

NOUN: 1a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. 2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order. 3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. 4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

ETYMOLOGY: Middle English religioun, from Old French religion, from Latin religi, religin-, perhaps from religre, to tie fast. See rely.

and:

tradition

NOUN: 1. The passing down of elements of a culture from generation to generation, especially by oral communication. 2a. A mode of thought or behavior followed by a people continuously from generation to generation; a custom or usage. b. A set of such customs and usages viewed as a coherent body of precedents influencing the present: followed family tradition in dress and manners. See synonyms at heritage. 3. A body of unwritten religious precepts. 4. A time-honored practice or set of such practices. 5. Law Transfer of property to another.

It would seem that Wicca fits both definitions. The age of Wicca does not determine the ability to define it as either a religion or a tradition.

"They aren't. Here's the facts. "Wiccans", "Neopagans" and such like, tend to be young, American and university educated. University educated people don't usually believe in things which are, on the face of them, absolutely untrue. "

Not quite a fact. In reality the majority of people calling themselves "Wiccan" and "Neo-Pagan" have not made it out of high school yet. Those are the numbers. But, something should be observed in these statistics. These Wiccans are much like Sunday Christians. They don't uphold the belief system or follow the ideals set forth by the religion. Instead they carry the title in hopes of gaining acceptence and whatever benefits are alluded to by the religion. There is a noticable difference between the Wiccan who follows the religion and one who simply calls his or herself Wiccan. Much the same can be said for Christians, or anyone else.

"The creation myths, cosmogonies and rituals of all pagan religions are all ludicrous. "

Which pagan religions? It might help if you were a little more specific. Unless of course, you are being so general on purpose. And how is the Christian cosmogony more credible than any Pagan cosmogony? Creation myths and cosmogony are the same, btw. Cosmology on the other hand is different.

"Not only are the beliefs of Wiccans ridiculous to the point of risibility, they're also provably fabricated and internally inconsistent. "

You could easily replace "Wiccans" with "Christians". Have you ever wondered why there are so many different versions of the Bible?

"It gets better. When Gardner invented neopaganism, he just put it together from all the bits he liked from the Penguin Library of Mythology. So Wicca has bits of Northern Italian folklore, bits of the Magick of Aleister Crowley (mainly Jewish mysticism), bits of Greek elemental symbolism (Thales, 500BC) and the whole thing suffused with a miasma of "Celtic" imagery"

Gardner didn't invent Neo-Paganism. He invented Wicca. Neo-Paganism arose because many people didn't agree with Wicca, yet still felt drawn to Paganism and Witchcraft. Although, you are quite correct in your description of the influences of Wicca. Though it might be noted that the main influence was Charles Leland's work, "Aradia: Gospel of the Witches".

", referring to a gang of Austrian savages who ended up in Galicia, with no culture, only the most extremely dubious historical provenance and the most tenuous of connections to the people who walk round calling each other "Celts" today. "

Concerning the Celts, well, your knowledge and understanding of the people and culture we refer to as "Celts" and "Celtic" enforces everyone's comments on the superficial nature of your knowledge concerning this subject.

"Not only that, but the main creed of the "neopagan" movement is "An it hurt none, do as you will", "

That would be a Wiccan tenent, not a Neo-Pagan tenent in general. Perhaps you could take reference from other Neo-Pagan religions, such as Sinistrogata, Kemetic Reconstructionists, Asatru, and the many eclectic styled traditions.

"It is no exaggeration to say that the main works of Celtic literature are almost entirely concerned with the subject of killing other people and stealing their cows. When they don't deal with the equally mystical and spiritual subject of getting drunk and waking up in a ditch. "

Once again, your lack of knowledge regarding Celtic culture arises. The Tains are the writings of Christian monks, based somewhat on the pre-Christian stories of the Irish Celts. Not to mention the fact that the Tains are minor stories within the known "Celtic literature". I will point out the Mythological Cycles of the Irish and the Red Branch Cycles. Then there are the tales of the various battles between the inhabitants of Ireland and the invaders (the Tuatha De Danann and the Milesians for example). Then there are the tales of the High Kings of Ireland, the druids, the Immrama, among others.

"Put it this way. Nobody was brought up Wiccan. Nobody had their children named at a "blooding ceremony" straight after the "hand-fasting", nobody took their children to campfires instead of Sunday School and nobody sat up night after night teaching their little ones enough Chaucer to give them a hope of understanding what "an you hurt none" means. "

I have met quite a few people who were brought up Wiccan, but really that is beyond the point. I have met more who were brought up Traditional Witches, with a long family history of passing down their teachings. While I'm not Wiccan or a Traditional Witch, I was brought up going to campfires instead of Sunday School and my parents are Christian. You keep referring to Chaucer, is that your sole support for your argument?

"Of course there isn't. Simply to pose the possibility is to see it as ridiculous. People don't become Wiccans in order to carry on the beliefs of their parents. People become Wiccans in order to offend their parents, to try to extract some revenge on Mum and Dad for the terrible crime of having financially supported them for all of their fourteen years of life. "

Were you slighted in some way that resembles this argument? Did your children become Wiccan? Or perhaps the children of a close friend? I'm wondering why it is that you resort to emotional blinds instead of dealing with the issue in a manner that would require some serious thought and scholarship.

"The pagan "tradition" is the actual antithesis of a tradition "

Only if you are redefining the word "tradition".

"A Wiccan doesn't go to hell if they are stopped from making silly hand signs at the customers in McDonalds, in the way that a Muslim can sincerely believe himself to be in danger of if provision is not made for him to make Umrah. "

Are you upset that you will go to hell if you don't obey God's Word? The Celts did not go to any form of Hell. The Norse did not go to any form of Hell, even though the origins of the word "Hell" lie in Norse mythology. Punishment does not define religion. Punishment is an attempt to keep the followers bound to the ideology of the religion.

"So then, are we really, seriously, meant to believe that this half-dignified collection of Santa Claus myths is to be given the same status as the great religions of the world?"

Do we need to get into myth in religious comparison? Shall we compare the validity of religions based upon their myths? Jesus died and was resurrected. So was Ishtar. So was Inanna. So was Osiris. So was Re. So was Mithras. So was Dionysos. So was Bacchus. Jesus walked on water. Manannan Mac Lyr rode upon the waves, either of his own accord or upon the backs of horses. Jesus healed. We don't have the space to compare that one. God was incarnated in the form of Jesus, through the Virgin Birth. Shall we compare Jesus to Zeus, in this form? Or what about the three births of Dionysos?

". Anyone looking at the site of a Wiccan party the morning after knows that the genuine regard which the neopagans have for the earth doesn't even stretch to picking up their own beer cans and condoms. "

This is very interesting. When Christians protested the acceptance of Wicca at Ft. Hood in Texas, it was they who left their trash and signs upon the ground. They were the ones judging, becoming violent, swearing, cursing, generally showing the ignorance of their religion. On the other hand, the Pagans and Wiccans spent hours afterwards cleaning up the trash left by the Christians and apologizing for the actions and words of the Christians.

"And the American Civil Liberties Union really ought to find something better to do with their time than to pretend that anything else is the case. "

Perhaps they could if they weren't forced to deal with people such as yourself. As with most groups, they spend more time trying to correct the misinformation spread by the uneducated masses than accomplishing anything truly tremendous.

Nathan's thread (none / 0) (#117)

by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 10:52:36 AM PST

Nathan,

You are arguing with no back up. It seems that you know nothing about the religion of Wicca. (nothing accurate, anyway) And furthermore, you are ignorant for being so overly concerned with dogma that you fail to see what this means of spirituality is all about. Wicca may not be a religion with a solid, organized foundation; but to many Wiccans, this is the beauty of it. Dogma often clouds the true reason for religion in the first place - to connect with the Divine, and to help make this World a better place. The bottom line is this - call God whatever name you want, give God any face you want, it doesn't change what God is. And God just IS. Who are you to tell anyone that their version of God or method of connecting with the Divine is not valid? All paths are valid. Anyone who says otherwise is completely missing the point. So go ahead and use your big words to try to belittle others' beliefs. The only one you are making a fool of is yourself.

This article almost made me sick. This response made me feel much better.

Mr. jsm, sir, I personally am a die-hard agnostic, but I ask you, what right have you to belittle another religion like this? Are you God? Do you know the One Truth of Religion? Do you, in short, actually have the right to say that some religion is totally "incorrect?" This Anonymous Reader to whom I am responding has it right. It's not about having the "right" religion, it's about finding something you believe in and using that belief to help yourself get through the harder times in life, thus making it easier for yourself and everyone you come in contact with. Don't just spit out your contempt without knowing the consequences. You're not going to change any Wiccans' minds with that kind of tone, just breed comtempt in others for Wiccans by making these kinds of generalizations. And that, it seems to me, is the very antithesis of any of the religions about which you seem to think you know so much.

I would like to clear up a bit of confusion on the accusations that Wicca grabs and combines random mythology from other cultures, and therefore doesn't believe one "true" thing, etc. etc. How could an intelligent person make sense of this?

Well....

Wiccans believe that dieties are personifications of energies that DO EXIST!! There are male and female energies in the universe - we are simply giving them names with which to address them. Given this, we can appreciate that different cultures felt these energies in different places of the world and in different times in history and addressed them and celebrate them in the way that had the most understanding and meaning for them.

The God and Goddess come to us in the way that we are most ready and willing to accept - for you it may be as Christ and Mary - for me, it may be something else. We need to have tolerance towards the fact that we all can travel different paths to the divine that are no more or less valid than any other.

Blessed be.

Wicca and the Insult to Religion (none / 0) (#163)

by Anonymous Reader on Sun Mar 31st, 2002 at 03:40:29 PM PST

All religions have their Jim Bakkers, their Oral Roberts, etc. Just because a small group doesn't adhere to their "religious beliefs" doesn't make the religion bad, or any less important to it's adherents.
Most Pagans beleive that each person should believe in what is right for them, and allow others to do the same. Christians, on the other hand, believe that anyone who believes differently than them will go to hell. All the different factions of Christianity teach this, even about other Christians.

Re:Wicca and the Insult to Religion (none / 0) (#165)

by Anonymous Reader on Mon Apr 8th, 2002 at 12:25:33 PM PST

I took the time to read over this post, and I must say that the author made many errors on all counts. Is the wiccan view any more insane then the belief of a man nailed to a cross and then rising from the dead? Most religions, if not all, seem a bit stupid from the point of view from an outsider. That is why one must look deeper, to see the context and how such beliefs fit together... To judge the quality of a religion based only on your own personal bias against unresearched information is the real ludicrous position to take.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective
companies.
Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org.
The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most
Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source
Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part
of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written
permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by
the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to
legal@adequacy.org.